Subject: Re: Saxon VS XT From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:45:07 -0700 |
----- Original Message ----- From: Sebastian Rahtz > Jobin, Eric writes: > > I've been having an arguments with a co-workers about Saxon versus XT. He > > believes that XT should be "THE" tool while I argue that Saxon has all the > > power and flexibility. What do you think? > > There is no contest, unless/until XT either gets completed by James, > or someone else takes the code and releases a complete (eg) > openXT. How can you live with a processor which does not implement the > whole spec? How can I live without 5(?) XSLT features not implemented by XT ???? Sebastian, I apologize, but maybe you will provide me with some particular usecase which can not be done with current XT ( + Java ) ? I think that I can do anything in XT + Java *and* XT + Java solution will be faster than 'conformant' solution. This 'conformance' dance is exciting, but I still think that it is XT that has no competition ( at least as 'the embeddable XSLT engine' area ). By design, by implementation and by common sense. Rgds.Paul. PS. Please note than it was you who placed it this way - not me. PPS. I'll be glad if XT will be 100% conformant but I'll be glad *not* because I'll start using the missing ( almost useless ) features, but only because this will allow me to say: "XT is 100% conformant" to those lost souls who are self-limiting themselves with pieces of paper published on some website. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Saxon VS XT, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: Saxon VS XT, Sebastian Rahtz |
Re: AW: Nodeset displayed as <ul>-l, Jeni Tennison | Date | Re: portability. (Re: microsoft lat, Paul Tchistopolskii |
Month |